Color correction: RAW Parameters window vs Timeline Clip

[Gene Sung]

Hi Friends,

Red is my first real RAW camera and I have a few questions on color correction.

Since After Effects now caches the previews (huge, huge improvement), I’ve been mainly using AE for grading over Resolve mainly because I know AE better.

In AE, you can directly access the Red R3D parameters (similar to how Photoshop accesses RAW adjustments) - WB, ISO, curves, etc… Before Red, I’ve mainly worked with compressed codecs - ProRes, XAVC - and with those you just apply the adjustments on the timeline clip since there are no RAW parameters that you can adjust.

My questions:

1) Do you guys usually do your color adjustments on the RAW parameters page or do you guys make the color adjustments on the timeline clip which is a much faster workflow. Or a bit of both which is what I've been doing.

2) If I am adjusting on the timeline clip, am I actually adjust the R3D? Or am I adjusting some type of intermediary file. Is it more powerful to adjust the actual root R3D parameters?

Thanks

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

Do the raw then the rest, basically it's less destructive to do what u can in the raw settings, then tune it up with secondaries or whatever in the timeline, which adjusts post raw tab

 

[Gene Sung]

Thanks Jake,

So basically do the major things like White Balance, ISO, Saturation, etc... in the RAW parameters window.

For less major shifts - things like color shifts, LUTs and some fine tuning, do that in the Secondaries??

EDIT:

Just for my clarification: Basically adjusting the R3D in the timeline, we lose all the benefits of RAW? In the timeline, an R3D would be no different than a compressed codec like ProRes in terms of adjustability?

 

[Marc Wielage]

Red is my first real RAW camera and I have a few questions on color correction. Since After Effects now caches the previews (huge, huge improvement), I’ve been mainly using AE for grading over Resolve mainly because I know AE better.

If you're looking for opinions: I think After Effects is a fantastic tool for VFX, but a very bad tool for color correction. One reason is that it forces you to change color with the user interface and mouse controls; Resolve gives you the ability to use hardware panels, which is a far faster and more precise way to adjust color. In fairness to AE, I'd also say you're much better off doing VFX in AE than doing VFX in Resolve. Every piece of software has its own pros and cons. Everything initially requires effort to learn and skill to use, but you can get up to speed in a week to the point where you can make reasonable pictures.

I would point out, though, the advantage of working with an experienced colorist is first, they can do the job a lot faster, and secondly, they can make suggestions you never would have thought of on your own.

Do you guys usually do your color adjustments on the RAW parameters page or do you guys make the color adjustments on the timeline clip which is a much faster workflow. Or a bit of both which is what I've been doing.

I generally use both, but I only adjust the raw parameters over an entire sequence. If one scene was shot on the same day, on the same set, under the same general lighting conditions, then I'll make one Raw adjustment and apply that to the entire sequence. All the fine-tuning is done with the primary and secondary controls. We generally don't have the time to work any other way, but there's so much endless tweaking going on -- particularly with multiple tracking windows on different characters and the backgrounds -- Raw is the least of our worries. If I see a specific problem that might be solved with a Raw adjustment -- like an exposure/ISO issue -- then and only then would I make a Raw adjustment.

If I am adjusting on the timeline clip, am I actually adjust the R3D? Or am I adjusting some type of intermediary file. Is it more powerful to adjust the actual root R3D parameters?

Well, you're adjusting how the Red file is being debayered and played back. There is no intermediary file involved, though it is being converted on-the-fly to a debayered image you can actually see on a monitor.

BTW, I would caution you not to trust what you see on a monitor unless it's been calibrated to a known standard. You can drive off the road very quickly if you trust computer displays. The only way to get predictable results is to use an external calibrated grading monitor.

 

[Med D]

Gene, I asked a similar question -- regarding LUTs though-- in another thread. It did not get answered but it got me looking into how this works a little more closely. I am far from an expert but here is what I think happens. The parameters that are available in the R3D file -- levels, WB, contrast, etc -- are, as you noted, baked into the R3D file when you change them. It does not matter where you change them -- Redcine, AE, Premiere -- the changes are captured in the R3D and its sidecar RMD file. These are all non-destructive of the RAW data.

Once you start making changes in your CC program -- primary, secondary, LUT, windows, or even VFX in the case of the AE -- these all live well outside of the R3D file world. They exist only in your project until you render, and then they exist in the rendered files of course. So once you start working in AE or Resolve, your R3D are no longer perfect captures of your work-in-progress from a color perspective. You must render to get new clips that have that evolved color. As Mark states, you do have the benefit of working with the full RAW data in those programs that accept R3D files, which is perhaps the heart of your question.

Marc, if this is wrong please correct me! I only color projects that are pro-bono or zero-budget so I barely qualify as an amateur. I have neither the color eye nor the software skills to be anything more than dangerous.

 

[paulherrin]

it sounds like you're already doing it this way but i'd recommend doing a first-light basic grade in redcine-x or with the r3d controls in ae, then do anything beyond that with the ae tools.

that being said, i agree with marc on both keeping consistent your r3d settings for a scene/sequence and using resolve instead of ae for color. and using a calibrated display...

 

[Marc Wielage]

Gene, I asked a similar question -- regarding LUTs though-- in another thread. It did not get answered but it got me looking into how this works a little more closely. I am far from an expert but here is what I think happens. The parameters that are available in the R3D file -- levels, WB, contrast, etc -- are, as you noted, baked into the R3D file when you change them. It does not matter where you change them -- Redcine, AE, Premiere -- the changes are captured in the R3D and its sidecar RMD file. These are all non-destructive of the RAW data.

That is essentially true. But there are a lot of people who freak out at the thought of permanently baking-in corrections to files that are used for post. Don't forget that all large VFX movies (basically, every movie that costs more than $50 million and up) assemble and color-correct the final from DPX or EXR files. They get rid of the Raw files very early in the workflow, because the files have to be debayered and composited with all the effects work. The trick is to find a reasonable setting that basically gets the shot color-corrected in the ballpark for work later on.

Noted VFX expert Gray Marshall (who pops up here and there on Reduser) was interviewed recently on the Josh Petok's Colorist podcast, and he flat-out said that he advised color-correcting all shots intended for VFX in the production. I don't want to put words in his mouth, so listen to what he has to say directly:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/colorist-podcast/id1124544502?mt=2

What I would say is that people get very wrapped up with Raw vs. not raw, but I honestly think when you use very, very low compression -- like ProRes 444 or DPX or EXR -- you're not going to see any difference between that image and a true Raw image, assuming identical resolution. The only exception would be shots with problematic color temperatures or exposures. I have had ProRes projects where we went back and redid about a dozen Raw shots to try to coax more detail in blown-out highlights or fix a bad color temperature issue, but generally you can't make it hugely better; at best, we maybe got it 5-6% better, and in some cases it didn't help at all.